How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Ron Wagner + 643]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yet you didn't cite a singe thing that can't be replaced by green electricity.

Figure it out for yourself. I am reality based, you are in denial. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/04/22/report-new-york-city-residents-slow-to-embrace-electric-vehicles/

 

Report: New Yorkers Reluctant to Buy Electric Vehicles as City Pushes ‘Carbon Neutrality’

 

breitbart will rot your brain. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Figure it out for yourself. I am reality based, you are in denial. 

No, there is nothing that fossil fuels do that can't be replaced by green electricity. That is why you can't name any.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.spectrumgeo.com/geological-resources/technical-paper-library/seismic-identification-and-applications-of-methane-hydrate-as-a-future-energy-source

They have a small map that sure looks like there are methane hydrate deposits in the northern coasts. 

Nope - maybe a little off the west coast of Denmark, but Germany is in the zero zone. And even the little bit off the west coast of Denmark is less than you think.  They are looking at tiny amounts of clathrate - a few meters thickness at most.  The ‘good’ locations for methane hydrates have hundreds or even thousands of meters vertical present.  It’s ‘technically present’ in the same way that all rocks have gold in them.  It’s in tiny amounts that nobody can get out in a reasonable way

Edited April 23, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[NickW + 2,714]

On 4/21/2022 at 9:32 PM, Ron Wagner said:

I am in total agreement with that. Germany will have to sacrifice some of its scenery but hopefully offshore will help reduce that loss. I am hopeful that wave power is finally harvested economically. It has even better potential than wind with less scenic loss. 

I don't find the offshore structures spoiling the scenery whether they be wind farms or gas rigs. Off the River Blackwater (Essex ) estuary there is the Gunfleet sands wind farm. This is one of the older developments with 3.6MW turbines. I keep my yacht in the Blackwater. I will try and get out there and get some photos this summer and post. 

Further out behind Gunfleet is the London Array which was the biggest offshore farm in the world. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Nope - maybe a little off the west coast of Denmark, but Germany is in the zero zone. And even the little bit off the west coast of Denmark is less than you think.  They are looking at tiny amounts of clathrate - a few meters thickness at most.  The ‘good’ locations for methane hydrates have hundreds or even thousands of meters vertical present.  It’s ‘technically present’ in the same way that all rocks have gold in them.  It’s in tiny amounts that nobody can get out in a reasonable way

The gas resource in the Southern North Sea is in the undersea coal deposits. 

A mate of mine, a Geologist who works for one of the biggies said the extractable resource is about the equivalent of 500 years UK current usage. However the economics of exploiting dry gas in offshore environments say no. 

 

[notsonice + 1,068]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

The gas resource in the Southern North Sea is in the undersea coal deposits. 

A mate of mine, a Geologist who works for one of the biggies said the extractable resource is about the equivalent of 500 years UK current usage. However the economics of exploiting dry gas in offshore environments say no. 

 

so what is more economical these days???? Offshore wind with storage or Offshore nat gas production????  I take it Wind is from your comments

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, notsonice said:

so what is more economical these days???? Offshore wind with storage or Offshore nat gas production????  I take it Wind is from your comments

The competition is with other sources of gas - Qatari, US, Norwegian, Russian (well until recently) 

[notsonice + 1,068]

12 minutes ago, NickW said:

The competition is with other sources of gas - Qatari, US, Norwegian, Russian (well until recently) 

yep onshore production, at least in the US from drilling multiple long legged horizontal bores from a single verticle hole (up to 8 km ...one of my buds works on long horizontal bores stated they have put in a few 5 mile horizontal bores )

 

Now if they figure out how to drill 20 km horizontal bores IE cover an area of 1000 km2 from one hole....Offshore gas will really pay off.....

I give the industry about 5 years to when 5 to 10 km horizontal bores are common

The Trend in Drilling Horizontal Wells Is Longer, Faster, Cheaper

The trend toward drilling longer horizontal wells is growing with lateral lengths of 3 miles reached.

In the Permian Basin, horizontal wells with 3-mile-long laterals are becoming routine.

Last year 18% of the wells in the play were in the 15,000-ft range, up from only 4% in 2017. The average is approaching 10,000 ft, according to a Rystad Energy study that shows drilling in the Permian is setting records if measured by the total number of feet drilled per year.

“The Permian is now entering a 3-mile-lateral era. Such long wells were viewed as inferior for their high finding and development costs in some deeper zones just a few years ago, but modern equipment and completion methods allow extended-reach wells to spread across the entire basin,” said Artem Abramov, head of shale research at Rystad.

Increasingly, the laterals seem to come in two sizes: 10,000 ft and 15,000 ft. On a recent research trip to Midland to meet with drillers, Richard Spears, vice president of Spears and Associates, an oilfield market data firm, said he heard so much about the cost advantages of 15,000-ft wells, he had to ask why anyone was drilling shorter ones.

“The universal answer was that the 15,000-ft lateral was the most capital-efficient, meaning you got a lot of reservoir exposure at a lower cost than with a 10,000-ft lateral, but many times the lease lines did not allow for a lateral greater than 10,000 ft,” he said.

The trend toward long laterals began in the Marcellus and is spreading in the Permian where operators are taking advantage of major gains in drilling and completions operations.

The biggest operator in the Permian, Pioneer Natural Resources, has been a major proponent of longer laterals. Rystad said 19% of Pioneer’s wells had laterals longer than 12,500 ft in the Permian in 2020–2021.

It drilled 12 three-mile wells in 2021 and planned to double that total this year, “if not a bit more,” said J.D. Hall, executive vice president for operations at Pioneer, during a recent earnings call. “We see these as being a huge value-adder to our program.”

Soon after ConocoPhillips closed the deal to buy Shell’s acreage in the Permian on 1 December 2021, its team began applying its drilling and completions methods there. When it comes to cost cutting, Tim Leach, executive vice president of Lower 48 at ConocoPhillips, said their “biggest opportunity in the near term is transitioning from 1-mile wells to 2-mile wells.”

And they are going longer. “In the southern Midland Basin, we just completed a drilling project that included several 3-mile and one 3½-mile lateral that we drilled in record time and have been very pleased with the results and the production from that,” Leach said during a recent earnings call.

Doing more of these long laterals will require some swapping and trading with adjoining lease holders because 15,000-ft laterals require “big, blocky acreage blocks,” he said. “The good news is that this is a win-win for both parties. Everybody wants to be able to drill longer laterals where they have bigger interest in their own operations.”

What About Production?

Longer laterals can significantly cut costs, but are those added feet also productive?

Rystad forecast—based on the distribution of expected completion activity by county, landing zone, and well design—that the average productivity of new Permian wells seems to track the well length. Between 2019 and 2022, the average well output was up from about 850 to 1,000 BOE/D, and the average lateral length rose from 8,500 to 10,000 ft.

When the Norwegian data and consulting firm compared the results of companies doing 2- and 3-mile-long laterals in comparable rock with similar completions, they found the production per foot for longer laterals sometimes falls short.

“Our conclusion so far was that many of them were able to maintain productivity per foot, but we also recorded some cases with 10 to 20% degradation in productivity per foot for 3-mile laterals,” Abramov said.

Those estimates were based on the first 3 to 6 months of production. He said that “most likely, degradation in EUR [estimated ultimate recovery] will be less pronounced as 3-mile laterals exhibit even longer flowback period and shallower decline rates.”

Even if the lower rate has a lingering effect, the 15 to 20% reduction in drilling and completion costs offers an economic argument for going longer.

Those savings are a product of faster drilling and completion methods. A Rystad chart shows that at the peak of the drilling boom in 2014, about 300 rigs drilled less than 20 million ft of lateral in a year, while last year fewer than 300 rigs drilled nearly 46 million ft.

Diamondback Energy offered some details about its drilling and completion savings during a recent earnings call.

“We've decreased the number of days it takes to drill from spud to total depth by nearly 30% this year alone. And we're now drilling 2-mile laterals in roughly 10 days in the Midland Basin,” said Travis Stice, the company’s CEO. On the completion side they are fracturing two wells at the same time by doing simul-fracs.

“We've transitioned the majority of our completion crews to simul-frac operations and are now completing wells in the Midland Basin nearly 70% faster than when we were utilizing the traditional zipper frac design,” Stice said.

Others are adopting the method, but not at the same pace as Diamondback which expects to complete about 90% of its wells using the method this year.

“Simul-fracs already account for about 10% market share in the Permian and we think it might grow to 20% as more and more operators are testing them on large projects. This trend definitely goes together with the shift towards longer laterals,” Abramov said.

Edited April 23, 2022 by notsonice

[NickW + 2,714]

14 minutes ago, notsonice said:

yep onshore production, at least in the US from drilling multiple long legged horizontal bores from a single verticle hole (up to 8 km ...one of my buds works on long horizontal bores stated they have put in a few 5 mile horizontal bores )

 

Now if they figure out how to drill 20 km horizontal bores IE cover an area of 1000 km2 from one hole....Offshore gas will really pay off.....

I give the industry about 5 years to when 5 to 10 km horizontal bores are common

The Trend in Drilling Horizontal Wells Is Longer, Faster, Cheaper

The trend toward drilling longer horizontal wells is growing with lateral lengths of 3 miles reached.

In the Permian Basin, horizontal wells with 3-mile-long laterals are becoming routine.

Last year 18% of the wells in the play were in the 15,000-ft range, up from only 4% in 2017. The average is approaching 10,000 ft, according to a Rystad Energy study that shows drilling in the Permian is setting records if measured by the total number of feet drilled per year.

“The Permian is now entering a 3-mile-lateral era. Such long wells were viewed as inferior for their high finding and development costs in some deeper zones just a few years ago, but modern equipment and completion methods allow extended-reach wells to spread across the entire basin,” said Artem Abramov, head of shale research at Rystad.

Increasingly, the laterals seem to come in two sizes: 10,000 ft and 15,000 ft. On a recent research trip to Midland to meet with drillers, Richard Spears, vice president of Spears and Associates, an oilfield market data firm, said he heard so much about the cost advantages of 15,000-ft wells, he had to ask why anyone was drilling shorter ones.

“The universal answer was that the 15,000-ft lateral was the most capital-efficient, meaning you got a lot of reservoir exposure at a lower cost than with a 10,000-ft lateral, but many times the lease lines did not allow for a lateral greater than 10,000 ft,” he said.

The trend toward long laterals began in the Marcellus and is spreading in the Permian where operators are taking advantage of major gains in drilling and completions operations.

The biggest operator in the Permian, Pioneer Natural Resources, has been a major proponent of longer laterals. Rystad said 19% of Pioneer’s wells had laterals longer than 12,500 ft in the Permian in 2020–2021.

It drilled 12 three-mile wells in 2021 and planned to double that total this year, “if not a bit more,” said J.D. Hall, executive vice president for operations at Pioneer, during a recent earnings call. “We see these as being a huge value-adder to our program.”

Soon after ConocoPhillips closed the deal to buy Shell’s acreage in the Permian on 1 December 2021, its team began applying its drilling and completions methods there. When it comes to cost cutting, Tim Leach, executive vice president of Lower 48 at ConocoPhillips, said their “biggest opportunity in the near term is transitioning from 1-mile wells to 2-mile wells.”

And they are going longer. “In the southern Midland Basin, we just completed a drilling project that included several 3-mile and one 3½-mile lateral that we drilled in record time and have been very pleased with the results and the production from that,” Leach said during a recent earnings call.

Doing more of these long laterals will require some swapping and trading with adjoining lease holders because 15,000-ft laterals require “big, blocky acreage blocks,” he said. “The good news is that this is a win-win for both parties. Everybody wants to be able to drill longer laterals where they have bigger interest in their own operations.”

What About Production?

Longer laterals can significantly cut costs, but are those added feet also productive?

Rystad forecast—based on the distribution of expected completion activity by county, landing zone, and well design—that the average productivity of new Permian wells seems to track the well length. Between 2019 and 2022, the average well output was up from about 850 to 1,000 BOE/D, and the average lateral length rose from 8,500 to 10,000 ft.

When the Norwegian data and consulting firm compared the results of companies doing 2- and 3-mile-long laterals in comparable rock with similar completions, they found the production per foot for longer laterals sometimes falls short.

“Our conclusion so far was that many of them were able to maintain productivity per foot, but we also recorded some cases with 10 to 20% degradation in productivity per foot for 3-mile laterals,” Abramov said.

Those estimates were based on the first 3 to 6 months of production. He said that “most likely, degradation in EUR [estimated ultimate recovery] will be less pronounced as 3-mile laterals exhibit even longer flowback period and shallower decline rates.”

Even if the lower rate has a lingering effect, the 15 to 20% reduction in drilling and completion costs offers an economic argument for going longer.

Those savings are a product of faster drilling and completion methods. A Rystad chart shows that at the peak of the drilling boom in 2014, about 300 rigs drilled less than 20 million ft of lateral in a year, while last year fewer than 300 rigs drilled nearly 46 million ft.

Diamondback Energy offered some details about its drilling and completion savings during a recent earnings call.

“We've decreased the number of days it takes to drill from spud to total depth by nearly 30% this year alone. And we're now drilling 2-mile laterals in roughly 10 days in the Midland Basin,” said Travis Stice, the company’s CEO. On the completion side they are fracturing two wells at the same time by doing simul-fracs.

“We've transitioned the majority of our completion crews to simul-frac operations and are now completing wells in the Midland Basin nearly 70% faster than when we were utilizing the traditional zipper frac design,” Stice said.

Others are adopting the method, but not at the same pace as Diamondback which expects to complete about 90% of its wells using the method this year.

“Simul-fracs already account for about 10% market share in the Permian and we think it might grow to 20% as more and more operators are testing them on large projects. This trend definitely goes together with the shift towards longer laterals,” Abramov said.

If you can make offshore dry gas (in shallow seas) economical then the UK could be replacing Russia as Europes prime source of gas. 

Now that really would piss Putler off. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.spectrumgeo.com/geological-resources/technical-paper-library/seismic-identification-and-applications-of-methane-hydrate-as-a-future-energy-source

They have a small map that sure looks like there are methane hydrate deposits in the northern coasts. 

Quote

 

Here is a large version of the map. There are no hydrates around Germany. The black lines are seismograph tracks.

https://www.spectrumgeo.com/wp-content/uploads/Rodriguez_ST_FB_June_2018.pdf

[Eric Gagen + 713]

13 hours ago, NickW said:

The gas resource in the Southern North Sea is in the undersea coal deposits. 

A mate of mine, a Geologist who works for one of the biggies said the extractable resource is about the equivalent of 500 years UK current usage. However the economics of exploiting dry gas in offshore environments say no. 

 

In theory, that is true - it's probably never going to be worthwhile to exploit undersea natural gas from coal beds.  There is significant infrastructure required which makes it very expensive offshore.  

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

so what is more economical these days???? Offshore wind with storage or Offshore nat gas production????  I take it Wind is from your comments

Offshore wind by a landslide.  Offshore gas as noted by others is getting totally destroyed by gas on land from places where it is easy to get to.  

Offshore gas only makes sense in a few situations:

• Where the amount available is really really large AND extremely cheap to get  
  • Then you can afford to develop the fields, develop LNG facilities or pipelines and send it to wherever it needs to go
•  Where Demand and price of gas is very high and that demand and high price will be sustained for 20-30 years
  • Europe has these conditions right now, but how long they will last is highly suspect, and it's strongly inhibiting development of new gas supplies
• Where there is a strategic need, or inability to get supplies in any other way
  • Europe is there now on the strategic front, but it CAN get supplies in other ways, and those competing suppliers will inhibit domestic development.  Nobody will spend a fortune developing undersea coal bed methane if they can import gas from Qatar or Australia or the US or other politically safe places at a fraction of the price. 
• Where the amount available is large and cheap to get and infrastructure to transport it to markets already exists
  • This is what is driving the desire to connect up marginal conventional gas fields in the North Sea as an example, and has also been important for assisting the US shale revolution because key early areas had a lot of existing oil and gas infrastructure.

And that's pretty much it.  The amount of gas available right now from the US, Qatar, Russia or Iran is each individually able to meet ALL of Europe's demand.  Gas drillers here (US) are just now getting profitable as a result of the demand in Europe, but the ability to export it is too low to do much more than that.  That's because only Russia is set up from a logistics and infrastructure perspective to actually deliver the amounts required.  

[Ron Wagner + 643]

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

In theory, that is true - it's probably never going to be worthwhile to exploit undersea natural gas from coal beds.  There is significant infrastructure required which makes it very expensive offshore.  

Offshore wind by a landslide.  Offshore gas as noted by others is getting totally destroyed by gas on land from places where it is easy to get to.  

Offshore gas only makes sense in a few situations:

• Where the amount available is really really large AND extremely cheap to get  
  • Then you can afford to develop the fields, develop LNG facilities or pipelines and send it to wherever it needs to go
•  Where Demand and price of gas is very high and that demand and high price will be sustained for 20-30 years
  • Europe has these conditions right now, but how long they will last is highly suspect, and it's strongly inhibiting development of new gas supplies
• Where there is a strategic need, or inability to get supplies in any other way
  • Europe is there now on the strategic front, but it CAN get supplies in other ways, and those competing suppliers will inhibit domestic development.  Nobody will spend a fortune developing undersea coal bed methane if they can import gas from Qatar or Australia or the US or other politically safe places at a fraction of the price. 
• Where the amount available is large and cheap to get and infrastructure to transport it to markets already exists
  • This is what is driving the desire to connect up marginal conventional gas fields in the North Sea as an example, and has also been important for assisting the US shale revolution because key early areas had a lot of existing oil and gas infrastructure.

And that's pretty much it.  The amount of gas available right now from the US, Qatar, Russia or Iran is each individually able to meet ALL of Europe's demand.  Gas drillers here (US) are just now getting profitable as a result of the demand in Europe, but the ability to export it is too low to do much more than that.  That's because only Russia is set up from a logistics and infrastructure perspective to actually deliver the amounts required.  

So, you do admit that natural gas is available in great abundance in every region of the world. I would say oil is also as they are usually extracted together, is that correct? 

Geopolitical issues and wars are, of course, major impediments at times. The same is true of food, it is available but is often stolen or otherwise prevented from reaching those in need of it. 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

17 hours ago, NickW said:

I don't find the offshore structures spoiling the scenery whether they be wind farms or gas rigs. Off the River Blackwater (Essex ) estuary there is the Gunfleet sands wind farm. This is one of the older developments with 3.6MW turbines. I keep my yacht in the Blackwater. I will try and get out there and get some photos this summer and post. 

Further out behind Gunfleet is the London Array which was the biggest offshore farm in the world. 

Aesthetics are, to a degree, an individual taste but in the real world there are many people who want them beyond the horizon and not used in many scenic areas. There are also many other objections such as noise, vibrations, birds being killed, etc. I am not against wind turbines but hope that eventually tide power can take over, since it is has the potential to produce much more power with a smaller and less obtrusive amount of space. 

I lived in Europe and saw most of Western Europe and it is very compact compared to America. We have vast areas of what I would call wasteland as a generalization. Many others would disagree as many Californians actually do. You are aware of the Cape in Massachusetts being foiled because too many rich people opposed it. I live near three wind farms but not close enough to have any personal opinion on them. I do think that the power could be less expensive using the natural gas that is abundant in southern Illinois or adjacent areas. It would also IMHO be less expensive than our old nuclear plants that are being subsidized by the taxpayers and will be enormously expensive over the coming decades when they are retired. The taxpayers pay for the energy and now the subsidies. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

[Ron Wagner + 643]

On 4/22/2022 at 8:30 PM, Eric Gagen said:

Nope - maybe a little off the west coast of Denmark, but Germany is in the zero zone. And even the little bit off the west coast of Denmark is less than you think.  They are looking at tiny amounts of clathrate - a few meters thickness at most.  The ‘good’ locations for methane hydrates have hundreds or even thousands of meters vertical present.  It’s ‘technically present’ in the same way that all rocks have gold in them.  It’s in tiny amounts that nobody can get out in a reasonable way

You have closed your mind on this subject, many others have not. 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

On 4/22/2022 at 7:50 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

breitbart will rot your brain. 

Many here can't stand to face the truth. You are one. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

17 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Many here can't stand to face the truth. You are one. 

We've just destroyed your natural gas and oil claims for Germany using your own evidence. You are clearly the one who can't stand the truth.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

As far as fighting a war and stupidity of some EU leaders who are now buying Russian oil off main market , I guess green is really working for the greenies.

at the end of the day if you want a decent EV you’re going to drop at least $75,000. on it. A bit out of mainstream middle classes reach. Plus the amount of carbon emissions that will be spent setting up EV charging station’s will outweigh any emissions EV’s save. Also unless you’re connected to a nuclear power plant your emitting more carbon emissions then your currently saving.

The only plausible way to go green energy is to have governments spend billions and spread it over entire tax base in new taxes.

I’m thinking that the 70 percent + of taxpayers will be driving there gas cars and cutting there lawns with gas powered equipment for the foreseeable future.

They will vote against more taxation for EV infrastructure and will be unwilling to support it.

 

 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

38 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We've just destroyed your natural gas and oil claims for Germany using your own evidence. You are clearly the one who can't stand the truth.

No, not really. Germany has natural gas and oil, they also have the potential to make synthetic natural gas, and oil from coal and biological sources. Energy is all around us. It is just a matter of learning how to find and use it. Wind and solar have not met the need for Germany because they trusted the Russians to meet their needs. 

As everyone knows I favor "All of the above." energy sources, but focus on those most practical and cost effective. You are like a broken record. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

44 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

No, not really. Germany has natural gas and oil, they also have the potential to make synthetic natural gas, and oil from coal and biological sources. Energy is all around us. It is just a matter of learning how to find and use it. Wind and solar have not met the need for Germany because they trusted the Russians to meet their needs. 

As everyone knows I favor "All of the above." energy sources, but focus on those most practical and cost effective. You are like a broken record. 

Like a broken record because i keep telling you the truth of reality, not your gibberish.

We have absolutely shown you that they don't have enough oil and gas to make a difference. 2 years of untapped oil and 1.3 years of natural gas with no hydrates.

Synthetic natural gas and oil is super expensive and what Nazi Germany had to rely on you idiot and they lost. But I guess you are too dumb to know that.

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

So, you do admit that natural gas is available in great abundance in every region of the world. I would say oil is also as they are usually extracted together, is that correct? 

Geopolitical issues and wars are, of course, major impediments at times. The same is true of food, it is available but is often stolen or otherwise prevented from reaching those in need of it. 

No not at all.  How did you draw that conclusion from my post?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

You have closed your mind on this subject, many others have not. 

It’s not closed versus open mind / it’s knowing how to do physics and read a map.  The geology and hydrologic conditions undersea in the Baltic won’t allow for methane hydrates to form, so they don’t have them, even though a bunch of other places do.  

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Aesthetics are, to a degree, an individual taste but in the real world there are many people who want them beyond the horizon and not used in many scenic areas. There are also many other objections such as noise, vibrations, birds being killed, etc. I am not against wind turbines but hope that eventually tide power can take over, since it is has the potential to produce much more power with a smaller and less obtrusive amount of space. 

I lived in Europe and saw most of Western Europe and it is very compact compared to America. We have vast areas of what I would call wasteland as a generalization. Many others would disagree as many Californians actually do. You are aware of the Cape in Massachusetts being foiled because too many rich people opposed it. I live near three wind farms but not close enough to have any personal opinion on them. I do think that the power could be less expensive using the natural gas that is abundant in southern Illinois or adjacent areas. It would also IMHO be less expensive than our old nuclear plants that are being subsidized by the taxpayers and will be enormously expensive over the coming decades when they are retired. The taxpayers pay for the energy and now the subsidies. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

Noise and vibration in an offshore context is completely irrelevant 

Bird kill is minimal and hyped by the anti brigade. 

In UK nuisance / amenity law & caselaw there is no right to a view. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Let's just say that there is a 100-strong convoy of coal ships anchored within the Great Barrier Reef waiting to get their load right now. The previous record was 60. So the supply bottlenecks you hear about on the news are very real.

Whats the specific bottleneck at the Aussie end? 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Wombat One said:

I disagree Richie. Whilst you are correct that e-vehicles are far too expensive for the average Joe like me at this stage, the Chinese reckon they will soon be selling much cheaper ones here in Australia. Petrol will be approx $2/litre in a few months time (Federal govt has just temorarily halved the fuel excise due to our election), so maybe in 3 years when I need to replace my Suzuki Swift, I will be able to get a cheap electric shopping cart. I have a feeling that petrol will cost $3/litre (about $13/gallon) within 5 years. This is because I believe we are touching on peak oil right now. I know there are great advances in fracking etc, but ultimately, reserves have not been replaced for at least 3 years now. I suspect that only 55% of production is being replaced with new reserves at the moment.

There are plenty of decent EV's / PHEV's for well under $75K equivalent. Richie is just doing the reference TESLA (A premium product on a par with BMW) as the standard example of what you have to get. 

We went to look at the KIA Niro (small end family SUV) and Sportage today. List price on the NIRO EV is £35K and the PHEV £33K. You should be able to negotiate at least 5% off those prices.